[yang-doctors] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-mboned-dorms-01

Reshad Rahman via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Sun, 11 April 2021 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: yang-doctors@ietf.org
Delivered-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A889F3A1DFE; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 13:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Reshad Rahman via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: yang-doctors@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-mboned-dorms.all@ietf.org, mboned@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.27.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <161817467857.25277.18208608025617706305@ietfa.amsl.com>
Reply-To: Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 13:57:58 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/ogRyxz5jwOgHqYu2XsU4v0n66FE>
Subject: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-mboned-dorms-01
X-BeenThere: yang-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Email list of the yang-doctors directorate <yang-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/yang-doctors/>
List-Post: <mailto:yang-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2021 20:57:59 -0000

Reviewer: Reshad Rahman
Review result: On the Right Track

YANG Doctor review of rev-01 by Reshad Rahman.

Caveat: I won't pretend to fully understand the motivation behind DORMS. I've
reviewed this mostly from a YANG perspective.

Comments/questions:
- OOC, why is DORMS limited to RESTCONF? I do understand why RESTCONF is
appealing, but potential deployments might be using NETCONF, CORECONF or gNMI?
- The data in ietf-dorms is said to be read-only but doesn't have "config
false" - I'd add a "dorms" container at the top with "metadata" under "dorms".
If other DORMS data needs to be added in the future, it would get added under
"dorms". This would minimize top-level nodes as per RFC8407 section 4.10. -
"mandatory" is not needed for list keys, it's actually ignored as mentioned in
RFC7950 section section 7.8.2 - If a group requires a minimum number of
udp-stream entries (e.g. 1), add a "min-elements" statement under "group". If
not, leave as-is. - 7.1 Security considerations, looks like the read-only data
is not deemed sensitive, please add a statement to that effect. Regarding NACM,
consider a SHOULD instead of MAY?

Regards,
Reshad.
- Even though the YANG model is not complex, adding an example always helps.

Regards,
Reshad.